MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051622464 · doi:10.2458/azu_rc.57.18565

Computerized Paleographic Investigation of Hebrew Iron Age Ostraca

2015· article· en· W2051622464 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin, Arie Shaus, Barak Sober, Israel Finkelstein, David Levin, M. A. Moinester, Eli Piasetzky, Eli Turkel

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTel Aviv UniversityAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationLouisiana Board of Regents
KeywordsComputer scienceHebrewFacsimileDocumentationArtificial intelligenceHistoryClassicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article surveys ongoing research of the Legibility Enhancement of Ostraca (LEO) team of Tel Aviv University in the field of computerized paleography of Hebrew Iron Age ink-written ostraca. We perform paleographic tasks using tools from the fields of image processing and machine learning. Several new techniques serving this aim, as well as an adaptation of existing ones, are described herein. This includes testing a range of signal-acquisition methodologies, out of which multispectral imaging and Raman spectroscopy have matured into imaging systems. In addition, we deal with semior fully automated facsimile construction and refinement, facsimile, and character evaluation, as well as the reconstruction of broken character strokes. We conclude with future research directions, addressing some of the long-standing epigraphic questions, such as the number of scribes in specific corpora or detection of chronological concurrences and inconsistencies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207